David Wallace-Wells, described as “the best-selling science writer and essayist” for the New York Times who “explores climate change, technology, the future of the planet and how we live on it” wrote an essay called “Our Regression on Gender Is a Tragedy, Not Just a Political Problem.” That’s interesting: what “regression on gender”? Unfortunately, the writer was incapable of making whatever point he wanted to make without making his biases so obvious and obnoxious that I didn’t finish reading.
I wonder if someone like me was expected to.
I’m not going to fisk the whole thing, just as far as I read before deciding that I didn’t care what David Wallace-Wells thinks…about anything, really. Here we go…
“When Donald Trump stormed into the White House in 2016…”
“Stormed.” He walked into the White House after being elected just like every other President who didn’t inherit the office. Nice of the author to flag his bias and animus in the fourth word.
“….horrified Americans debated, almost endlessly, whether the shocking result was an expression of widespread racism (backlash to a Black president resulting in the election of a birther) or economic anxiety (the industrial Midwest especially feeling abandoned by globalization and the China shock).”
Note that the Americans who voted for Trump aren’t “Americans” to Wallace-Wells. The people who attributed Trump’s election to racism are the same lazy, demonizing, angry progressives who attribute all of their defeats (and failures) to racism (or sexism). Obama was a weak, divisive, arrogant and subtly racist President, and any backlash against him was entirely justified.
“Each was probably a factor, then, and each strand is still present in the Trump coalition, reflected in tariff wars and efforts to redirect civil rights law on behalf of whites.”
I was getting ready to bolt already at this point. Correctly pronouncing racial and gender discrimination against men and whites as intolerable is “redirect[ing] civil rights law on behalf of whites.” Right. That analysis is legally, constitutionally, and linguistically indefensible.
“But in 2025, MAGA seems much more distinctively molded by gender politics. Gender backlash is here, and before we think through the implications for partisan politics, we need to recognize it as a phenomenon that goes beyond them.”
Classic projection, again, as we have seen from the author’s ilk for years now. It is Democrats who have been denigrating and demonizing men, young and otherwise. It was the pathetic Democratic ticket that presented beta males as desirable role models, via the awkward, fake “guy’s guy” Tim Walz and whatever Kamala’s whipped husband was supposed to be. Their Presidential candidate again ran on the proposition that her lady parts should have been sufficient to make her qualified to be President. Running a wildly incompetent and inarticulate woman for President diminished public faith in the competence of women for leadership roles?
Huh. Who could have predicted that? (OK, I cheated…I skimmed ahead and saw that Wallace-Wells cites polls that suggest a decline in public trust and respect for women. Gee, might the party that gave us the Squad, Jill Biden, Karine Jean-Pierre, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala, Mazie Hirono, Jasmine Crocket and all those woke and incompetent female big city mayors have had something to do with this phenomenon?
“On the surface, the Trump coalition might appear powered by an unapologetic, rakish U.F.C. party-bro energy —”
I have no idea what “U.F.C” means and I have better things to do—sock drawer!—than look it up…
“… think of the glimpses we’ve gotten of Pete Hegseth’s naked torso or the way his confirmation hearings were meme-ified as a hard-ass man, accused of sexual assault, staring down a hectoring panel of hysterical grandmas.‘
Funny, J.F.K.’s “naked torso” on the beach thrilled Democrats and the news media 65 years ago. The ones who “meme-ified” the hearings were the Democrats, as I noted here and here. I guess the author missed the #MeToo feeding frenzy, when, briefly, being accused of sexual assault was sufficient to ruin a reputation until disgusting spectacles like the Kavanaugh hearings discredited the tactic, one hopes forever.
“Or for that matter, the time when the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, invited her Instagram followers to observe her working out in a sports bra.”
Wait, what?
“And there may not be a more representative clip about the vibe shift of 2024 than the comedian and podcaster Andrew Schulz explaining his supposed defection from the Democrats by explaining that he liked the dudes that have sex — using a crude term for female anatomy — and say whatever they want.”
How does a comment by an obscure comedian—I never heard about the comment and don’t know him—suddenly become “representative” of anything?
“Of course, in the aftermath of Dobbs, Republicans have pushed further to limit reproductive rights, state by state, and a bill recently introduced in Congress could ban online pornography outright.”
“Reproductive rights” is a deceitful rhetorical dodge, and anyone who uses that phrase to avoid calling abortion what it is marks himself or herself as a hack, a liar, a coward, and unworthy of serious consideration.
And “a bill recently introduced” describes hundreds of crackpot, irresponsible examples of partisan grandstanding every year that have no chance of being passed. But it COULD ban online pornography, except that such a law would be unconstitutional immediately.
“With a case threatening sites like Pornhub pending at the Supreme Court, 17 states have already instituted pre-emptive blackouts of the site.”
Hey, what’s the focus here? Pornography demeans and victimizes women. Efforts to limit or control porn—which is overwhelmingly a male attention-grabber— constitutes “regression” on gender?
“Questions have risen as to whether the White House intervened to lift travel restrictions on Andrew Tate, who faces rape and human-trafficking charges in Britain and a trafficking and money laundering investigation in Romania.”
Oh, well if they have risen, they must be important. Talk about cherry-picking! Who cares about Andrew Tate? Democrats are rending their garments over a wife-beating illegal immigrant who ended up back in the country he came from, and this trivia is supposed to be damning?
“More recently Trump didn’t rule out a pardon for Sean Combs.”
He also didn’t rule out pardons for Richard Haupptmann, Sirhan Sirhan and the Boston Strangler.
“It’s so odd how there are internal contradictions that are explained by ‘powerful men get to do whatever they want with impunity,’ is there a word for this,” the writer Irin Carmon noted sarcastically in December. In case you missed her meaning: “It’s called patriarchy.”
No, it’s called “being elected President of the United States and not being afraid to use the power you have.”
That was plenty for me.
What utter junk.
But forget it, Jack—it’s New York Timestown.
Ethics Alarms 
I believe the UFC referred to is the Ultimate Fighing Championship.
I agree with your basic premise. I find it hard to read a lot of what I find in the news these days. Any time I read an article now that starts off saying, “according to experts”, I move on. I also find myself rolling my eyes when a writer’s left wing bias is immediately apparent through the descriptors they use.
I did find your dismissal of a couple of points of modern culture curious, though.
For reference, UFC is the Ultimate Fighting Championship, basically a mixed martial arts, almost anything goes fighting tournament. I find UFC interesting because for the first several years it was won by Royce Gracie, a Brazilian master of his own family style of Jiu Jitsu. He basically showed that once he got a hold of his opponent, his grappling style was superior to any other martial art.
I don’t know much about Andrew Schulz, other than he’s a comedian with an interest in having conversations about politics. But I have seen him on several podcasts with other podcasters I listen to, like Patrick Bet-David.
What I found curious, though, was that two posts ago you criticized, correctly, I thought, someone for not just being culturally illiterate but also broadcasting that fact. “Not only doesn’t Malkia know about any of this, she doesn’t think she should and is willing to broadcast the fact that she doesn’t.” Obviously, Alice in Wonderland is more important than UFC or Andrew Schulz. But to me, at a minimum UFC is common knowledge, part of modern culture that anyone who’s paying attention would know about. I thought the juxtaposition of your disdain for even looking it up was amusing compared to your other post.
One other thought: I asked my daughter, who is 19, fairly well educated, and very aware of current culture, if she knew about Alice in Wonderland. She said of course she did, and briefly described it to me. I then played “White Rabbit” for her. She didn’t recognize it, but she said she liked it. I put on “California Dreamin'” by The Mamas and the Papas, which is from roughly the same period and somewhat more accessible. She said, “Of course I know that song. Everybody knows it.”
I don’t know if you were too hard on the woman in the Alice in Wonderland post, too easy on yourself in this one, or both, or neither. It’s not possible for anyone to know everything, but I think I’ll vote for too easy on yourself in this post, given the throwing stones while living in a glass house vibe. But it’s close. If we’re honest, we all have gaps in our cultural literacy.
Many good points!
1. Of course we all have gaps in our cultural literacy. What I object to is younger generations being smug about it and thinking huge gaps are OK. Since the explosion of information sources and Warhol’s (Who’s Warhol?) “15 minutes of fame,” it is literally impossible to keep up with short-term celebrities in one field or the other. I still try, though, and am failing miserably. Here’s list of celebs in a current celebrity news aggregator today: Dakota Johnson and Chris Martin; Kristin Cavallari, Glen Powell, Brett M Malec; Lindsay Hubbar, Turner Kufe,Ingrid Vasquez, Romeo Beckham and Kim Turnbull; Ciara; Brooke Shields, Meghan Markle, Tom Hanks, Prince William, Wes Anderson, Dakota Johnson, Celine Song, Walton Goggins. That’s 19: I could pick maybe seven of them out of a line-up.
2. Using initials without specifying the full name is rotten writing in a newspaper: the Times will usually spell out even the most common ones, like FBI, MVP and HUD. For whatever reason, the context had me thinking of anything but sports: I know about the Ultimate Fighting Championship; the initials just didn’t ring a bell. When GOAT started being used a lot, it took me a while to figure out what the hell it meant.
4.I’ll put Andrew Schulz in the “should know” category when he either does something significant or is still around in 2026. Obviously (right?) he’s no Alice.
5. “California Dreaming” became Muzak, so it figures that the song is mare familiar than “White Rabbit.” I’ve never heard an instrumental cover, and I doubt many singers over the years try to compete with Grace Slick. But there is no question that “White Rabbit” has more historical significance, like some Dylan songs.
I am just wondering about the very serious tone of Jack Marshall’s post, with which I do not disagree of course. I look with bemusement at how the Democrats are dealing with gender issues, and continue to hold on to their shovels to dig their own electoral grave with men. Throw around terms like “patriarchy”, “male privilege”, “toxic masculinity”, “teach man not to rape” and “sexism”, and a lot and men with self respect will run away from you and never come back. The Democrats are now a party of masculine women and feminine men.
Now the Democrats have set out to study young man (the SAM project), for the princely sum of 20M, and the results are sobering as described by the Politico article linked below.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/03/democrats-young-men-study-00384370
Gift link to the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/04/opinion/gender-polarization.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Mk8.0cVB.oCpDPYIl62CE&smid=url-share
Speaking of gender: When you’ve lost Karine Jean-Pierre…
Karine Jean-Pierre Leaves Democratic Party After Serving In Biden’s ‘Broken White House’
PWS
Writing this post right now…
Hi Jack,
Two points.
Here we go…
“When Donald Trump stormed into the White House in 2016…”
Yes, Trump walked into the White House, however the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign was a stormy period for him.
On a more serious note, you wrote,
I read the whole essay and I could not find any statement that warrants your note.
“Horrified Americans debated, almost endlessly, whether the shocking result was an expression of widespread racism (backlash to a Black president resulting in the election of a birther) or economic anxiety (the industrial Midwest especially feeling abandoned by globalization and the China shock).”
The statement literally implies that all Americans were horrified at Trump being elected. All Americans this guy hung around with, maybe. “Many” Americans would have been accurate. It would have been equally biased to write, “Gleeful Americans were thrilled at the defeat of the political establishment.”
His post implies, “all decent Americans”, meaning the ones he knows and who agree with him, as opposed to the Americans who voted for Trump and aren’t real Americans at all.
That’s how I read it!
Yes, they are close cousins to all the TRUE Scotsmen, after all.
–Dwayne
Ah, bringing back memories of the immortal tgt, the libertarian, atheist, EA icon whose favorite fallacy to call out was “No True Scotsman.”
Good night, tgt, wherever you are!
Oddly enough, I thought it was splitting us into horrified and non-horrified Americans rather than implying all Americans were horrified. I assumed you were reading it the way you said, but it wasn’t a step I would have jumped to. OTOH, I don’t exactly think like normal people sometimes. I’m not sure the extent to which the way I think lead to degrees in Math and Computer science or that the degrees changed the way I think and parse language.
Your reading is justified, and so is mine. Writers for respected publications (justifiably or not: the Times has forfeited the right to be respected) have an obligation to be clear, and deliberate or negligent ambiguity like that statement is unprofessional. A competent editor should have insisted that the sentence be clarified. I took the statement as proof that he was writing for an audience of the horrified, which is why I deemed the piece biased and untrustworthy.